The Trump card

It's been quite a year so far. In the sporting sphere, people have called it the year of the underdog. 

The biggest representation of that was Leicester City Football Club's remarkable triumph in England's Premier League; from 5000-to-1 outsiders to top dog in the space of nine months. You also had unheralded Iceland, with a total population of just over 300,000, light up Euro 2016, going all the way to the quarter-finals.

Switching codes to rugby, my own province of Connacht, a region not traditionally seen as a stronghold of the sport with a franchise that was almost disbanded by Irish rugby authorities a few years back, impressively claimed the league title contested by sides from the Celtic nations of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Will Team Trump be celebrating next month? (Picture from Facebook.)

In the political world, it's also been somewhat strange. We've had the much talked about Brexit in the UK, Colombia's 'no' vote to the historic peace deal reached between the government and Farc followed by President Juan Manuel Santos' winning of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts despite this big setback. 

Even back home in Ireland, there was a protest vote of sorts when the electorate returned in numbers to a party that was seen as the chief culprit of everything that went wrong during and after the Celtic Tiger boom years. We're a forgiving bunch, it seems.

In such an environment, a Donald Trump US presidential victory would seem to fit the narrative, as unlikely as that now appears this late in the game. 

Nonetheless, in less unpredictable times, a brash billionaire promising to 'make America great again' (just the United States of America that is, not any other part of it and especially not Mexico) would appeal not just to rednecks but plenty of city dwellers as well.

Thus, with a strong whiff of anti-establishment air whirling around, it's easy to see how the Trump card is attractive to many. 

He represents the giving of the middle finger to the old tried-and-trusted way of doing things. The system needs a little bit of a shake-up, a shock, and Trump would deliver that, both at home in the US and abroad. 

That's the thinking (and the hope for some, the fear for others) anyway. Yet didn't the outgoing Barack Obama offer a (sort of) new approach as well? (Then again, don't they all?)

Throw in the fact that Trump's main rival, Hillary Clinton, doesn't exactly inspire confidence — even though if she is elected, as polls predict, she will become the first woman president of the self-proclaimed greatest country on the planet and therefore a significant new departure in itself — and the ingredients for a Trump triumph are clearly there. The US's Electoral College system could also work in his favour; lose the popular vote but still make it to the White House.

So as much of the rest of the world looks on with trepidation at the chances, decreasing as they are, of Trump becoming the de facto leader of the free world, is it really a huge cause for concern?

He does hum to a different beat than most politicians, but were he to take power, how much of what he says he is going to do would he actually carry out? A good bet is not much at all. 

Indeed, he's more likely to become the best-known figurehead on a stage of other political figureheads who in reality kowtow to the real movers and shakers of this world; the money men, of which Trump is one, of course, but only one.

In fact, he might find out that he was able to exert more of an influence behind the scenes than being centre stage.

In the end, by going "radical" as some see it with Trump, the US might just be opting for the 'same old, same old.' And exactly how the real powers want it to be. Plus cą change. 

Oh well, there's always sport to provide us with the novelties.
___________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

2021: An Irish fiscal space odyssey

What heady times they are experiencing back in the homeland. Excitement is almost at an unprecedented level as the electorate in the Republic of Ireland gets ready to go to the polls on 26 February to vote for a new parliament.

If we've any left after we appease international creditors. (From Facebook.)

In the relatively short campaign — the election was only called earlier this month — one of the headline issues, going by national media anyway, has been that massive thorn in every Irish person's side: the fiscal space.

No, it's not some new Hollywood blockbuster that depicts us Paddies in a shady light. Rather, in the language that we 'ordinary folk' use, it's basically that sexy issue of how much money the new government will have to play around with during its five-year term in office — should it last that long that is. Who needs a Donald Trump to glam things up when you've got fiscal space to concern yourself with?

OK, OK, being serious for a moment, every country, in theory anyway, should be doing its best to balance the financial books, so it is an important issue. 

What's more, promises are ten a penny at election time, so by knowing the financial restraints the electorate and media can call the bluff on politicians who have overly fantastical manifestos.

Yet, coming back to Donald Trump and the ostentatious, populous, superficial type of campaigning we've seen in the US, the idea of talking about financial constraints doesn't seem part of the (Hollywood-style) script. 

Sure the United States has a massive national debt, but it's just numbers on a page. And this is the United States we're referring to: a country that has been practically built on bankruptcy.

It's only small, insignificant states, such as Ireland and others in worse conditions, that concern themselves about such tedious matters. And the piper's fee is relatively large. Some of us not only have to stick to the mantra but actually practise it as well so that it at least appears that all this borrowed money will be paid back some day; the system would, of course, fail without it.

As ever with such things, it's not those preaching the need to be financially prudent who tend to suffer the reality of meeting imposed monetary targets. 

No, it's the hard-pressed working classes who usually bear the brunt of state-enforced austerity — a state lying prostrate and feeble in front of the globe's all-powerful financial markets. The politicians who bow to every condition enforced by these untouchable forces live in a different, sheltered world to the rest of us little people.

But hey, who are we to pass judgement? In the Irish context, our 'leaders' are boldly and selflessly crunching numbers (but not their salaries) in a bid to find a formula to conquer the dark fiscal space — in the national interest that is.

Never mind the day-to-day, real issues blighting the masses, this space stuff is way more exciting.
_____________________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Eur-out

Citizens of Ireland, arise from your slumber. It’s now fully clear, Europe doesn’t want us anymore, as if it ever really did. 

If it wasn’t pretty clear already as to the continent’s feelings towards us, events of the past few weeks have spelt it out in no uncertain terms. 

What the Reich thinks of us & the rest of its 'Empire'.

Remember just last month the Irish electorate – well, those remaining in the country who bothered to vote – gave both the euro currency and EU itself a significant shot in the arm by endorsing the Fiscal Treaty in a referendum. It was a straight forward yes – not one of those nos that means a yes á la the Nice and Lisbon treaties. 

As all our main political parties assured us in the lead up to the vote – bar Sinn Féin and a few other weird leftists – a big thumbs-up would win us brownie points on the ‘mainland’ (that’s Europe we’re referring to here, not Britain, as some Shinners may think). 

Given the boot

But what happens? Well, our first dining at the top table of European soccer since 1988 – where it’s really at – sees us suffer a humbling 3-1 reverse to Croatia. This is a country, bear in mind, that’s not even a fully-fledged European Union member. Come on, they might as well have just given our place at the finals to that most European of countries, Israel. 

That’s followed swiftly by a 4-0 thrashing from a country that has a much worse debt problem than us, Spain. 

'As many an Ulsterman has been trying to tell us for years: We must utilise our orange power.'

Sport often tends to be more blunt and honest than most other walks of life. The message is clear – and don’t be fooled into thinking that it’s just soccer related. ‘We’ve had enough of these Irish alcoholics pretending to be part of Europe; the game is up lads’. Time to exit stage left. 

Who wouldn't like these guys? Europe just doesn't get it, eh?

The rot, however, has been setting in for some time. We should have really jumped ship after the ‘Hand of Henry’ incident in Paris (see: http://bit.ly/NruJT9). Loyalty gets you nowhere; just ask any married couple about that. 

Ignoring the Irish

It’s not all sporting signs, though. Even when we shower them with love, no less than two years in a row, in the shape of Jedward at Eurovision, they give us the proverbial two-fingers. Do you think the United States or even China would flatly reject such wooing? Of course not.

We can go further back if you want. For one, the Romans never wanted us. Yet for centuries we’ve been pledging our allegiance firmly in that direction – a one-way relationship if there ever was one. 

There’s more. How many times did we send SOS calls to our Catholic neighbours in France and Spain when Protestant Britain was laying siege to our land? Too big a number to go through here, that’s for sure.

And what help did we get? A few half-hearted attempts at sending military reinforcements, nothing more. 

Eastern promise?

Contrast this with Dermot MacMurrough’s call for assistance to Strongbow in the 12^th century. It was the start of a long-lasting, ahem, friendship with our neighbours across the Irish Sea. A friend in need and all that.

Some of our strongest assets - red heads & cattle.

Now, in case you thought we’d forgotten, the never-put-a-foot-wrong Germans, our current masters, aren’t without fault either; bombing poor little neutral Ireland’s capital city during World War Two. 

What did we do in return? Send our condolences to the German Embassy in Dublin on the news of the noble Herr Hitler’s death. Talk about setting a precedent for being a soft touch. 

'They may take our freedom but they'll never take our cattle!' 'What's that? They already have?!'

So let’s stop deluding ourselves – trying to be part of something that we’re plainly not. 

We have options. The Yanks would surely accept us – all we’d have to do is go back to living in thatched cottages and replace all those leaving the country with more cattle and sheep, thereby bringing back the traditional Irish traffic jam. 

We could, though, look east instead. That should at least ensure an easier qualifying route to the Fifa World Cup. Should, that is. 

In any case, if things were going awry against Asian opposition, we could always throw on Paul McShane. Our friends from the Orient would then be too busy trying to get a photo of his flowing ginger locks rather than worrying about football. 

As many an Ulsterman has been trying to tell us for years: We must utilise our orange power.

_______________________

For more on the way things currently stand for the Republic of Ireland, check out this very informative video: http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/#!/clip/820/

Dealing with the dealers

It was Albert Einstein who mused that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It seems pretty obvious, right? If your approach didn’t work the first or second time, there is a very high chance it won’t work the next time either.  

However, for something so cast-iron clear, many people fail to avoid it. Take the war on illegal drugs, for example. The strategy used here, which is virtually universal, is to tackle consumption and production to the point of elimination. 

After decades of employing such tactics, the results are paltry to say the least. Yet the fight goes on – and at quite a cost, not just financially speaking but also in terms of personnel. So is a new line of attack not long overdue? Or at the very least shouldn’t we start trialling one?

'Crime doesn't pay.' But drug dealing? Ask the Escobars.

The most obvious fresh approach is to begin a process of legalising heretofore banned drugs. By taking control of production and supply, individual nations will be in a much more powerful position to monitor and manage consumption. 

Not only that, but with such a move you would practically wipe out one of the main revenue sources for vicious criminal gangs across the globe. And what you take away from the underworld you can add to the state’s coffers (although considering how some countries are being governed at the moment, we’re not too sure how positive a move that is). 

Outside of the actual direct revenues that would be garnered from legalisation other savings would include the freeing up of prison spaces and the removal of a major burden on court time, to name just two. 

Now, while there is nothing new in such thinking, it does seem to be gathering – if only very slowly – more mainstream attention. Quite pertinently, a former drugs minister in the UK, the Labour party’s Bob Ainsworth, recently voiced such opinions. 

More significantly, though – surprisingly so, perhaps – Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos has also come out in support of the legalisation route in the effort to ‘win’ the war on drugs. Now we say surprisingly here because, despite most Westerners preconceptions about Colombia, the vast majority of locals are completely against illegal narcotics. The fact that the country has bloodily suffered more than most in the drugs war is one of the main reasons for this. 

Bearing that in mind, the thoughts on this matter of the pro-United States President Santos carry more weight than many others. He is seeing first-hand the futility of the old-school approach and has realised it’s time to change tack. He also knows that for such a policy to succeed, it has to be adopted across the world. It’s all or nothing.

Australia's Nimbin - leading the way?

In one sense it’s a case of ‘what have we got to lose’. There are those who argue that if we go down the legalisation route substance abuse will increase significantly. Such a stance seems to ignore personal choice. Just because something becomes available to all, does not mean all will take it. Indeed, for some, in such a case, the product loses a certain appeal. 

It also has to be said that right now, those who want illegal drugs, can get them relatively easy. The trouble is, as alluded to above, is that they must deal with dangerous characters in dangerous places in order to get them, keeping alive these murderous underworld empires. 

Indeed, one thing that the anti-drugs lobby and the dealers they so despise have in common is a desire to, more or less, maintain the status quo.

So after years of fighting an endless, winless war is the smart move not now to change the focus of attack - to take away one of the main raisons d’etre of the vast majority of criminal gangs. 

As Hollywood might put it, ‘it’s time to clean out the dealers’.

Back to the future

We can all be wise after the event – most of us, anyway. In an Irish context, we’ve had plenty of politicians and economists claiming that — after the wheels so dramatically and disastrously came off our false little boom — they knew the bust was coming well before it arrived. If so, the majority of them did a very good job of keeping this valuable information to themselves. Publicly making predictions or at least sharing your thoughts on the future direction of events is something many of our modern-day politicians shirk from. 

'So, which part of Poland can we have?' - Molotov, left, with Hitler.

The same, however, cannot be said for the former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov. Below is a speech he made in Paris on 10 October 1946, on the policy of ‘equal opportunity’ or the ‘open world’ economy that was beginning to take shape in the West. 

Considering how things have panned out in the 60-plus years since he uttered these words, you would have to say he wasn’t that far off the mark on much of what he foresaw here. Of course, depending on where you’re coming from, this ‘equal opportunity’ that Molotov feared is either good or bad. 

Like most things, it’s probably a mixture of both. Right now many of the ‘liberated’ former Soviet states are probably quite happy to be in bed with, so to speak, the USA rather than Russia. There might come a time, though, when that stance will change. Whatever the case may be, you can make up your own mind on what ‘Prophet’ Molotov had to say:

“We know that the United States made a very great effort in this war, in defence of its own interests and of our common aims, for which we are all grateful to that country. But for all that, it cannot be said that the United States is one of those states which suffered grave material damage in the Second World War, which were ruined and weakened in this war. We are glad that this did not happen to our ally, although we ourselves have had to go through trying times, the consequences of which will take us long years to heal.

Now that you know the facts, place side-by-side Romania, enfeebled by the war, or Yugoslavia, ruined by the German and Italian fascists, and the United States of America, whose wealth has grown immensely during the war, and you will clearly see what the implementation of the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ would mean in practice. Imagine, under these circumstances, that in this same Romania or Yugoslavia or in some other war-weakened state, you have this so-called ‘equal opportunity’ for, let us say, American capital – that is, the opportunity for it to penetrate unhindered into Romanian industry or Yugoslav industry and so forth: what, then, will remain of Romania’s national industry, or of Yugoslavia’s national industry?

It is surely not so difficult to understand that if American capital were given a free hand in the small states ruined and enfeebled by the war, as the advocates of the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ desire, American capital would buy up the local industries, appropriate the more attractive Romanian, Yugoslav and all other enterprises and would become the master in these small states. Given such a situation, we would probably live to see the day when in your own country, on switching on the radio, you would be hearing not so much your own language as one American gramophone record after another or some piece or other of British propaganda. 

The time might come when in your own country, on going to the cinema, you would be seeing American films sold for foreign consumption – and not those of better quality, but those manufactured in greater quantity and circulated and imposed abroad by the agents of powerful firms and cinema companies which have grown particularly rich during the war.

'Eh, Minister Molotov, let's give the cinema a miss today.'

Can anyone really fail to see that if, as a result of the application of the principle of so-called ‘equal opportunity’ in small states, unrestricted competition begins between the home products and the products poured out by the factories of the United States or Great Britain, nothing will remain of the sovereignty and independence of these states, especially considering the post-war conditions? Is it not clear that such unrestricted application of the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ in the given conditions would in practice mean the veritable economic enslavement of the small states and their subjugation to the rule and arbitrary will of strong and enriched foreign firms, banks and industrial companies? 

Is it not clear that if such ‘principles of equality’ are applied in international economic life, the smaller states will be governed by the orders, injunctions and instructions of strong foreign trusts and monopolies? Was this what we fought for when we battled the fascist invaders, the Hitlerite and Japanese imperialists?”

Well there you go. A visionary or what, eh?

__________________________

Speech taken from: McCauley, Martin, ‘Seminar Studies in History – The Origins of the Cold War’, PP 119-121, Longman, New York, 1990